Situationism

-according to one of its vigorous proponents, Joseph Fletcher, author of Situation Ethics,
situationism is located between the extreem of legalism and antinomianism.

-the antinomianism have no laws, the legalist have laws for everything, and Flethcher's
situationism has only one law.

-he contends that there is one law for everything, the law of love.

Setting Forth the Presuppositions

 According to Fletcher, there are four working principles of situationism

1. Pragmatism - by a pragmatic approach Fletcher means that "the right is only the
expedient in our way of our behaving."
- he wants to put love to work in order to make it successful and to
realize its "cash value".
- the pragmatic approach disdain abstract, verbal solution to ethical
problems; rather, concrete and practical answers.
2. Relativism - there is only one absolute; everything else is relative to it.
- "As the strategy is pragmatic, the tactics are relativistic."
- "The situationist," writes Fletcher, "avoids words like 'never' and
'perfect' and 'always' and 'complete' as he avoids the plague, as he avoids 'absolutely'."
- "In Chriatian situationism the ultimate criterion, as we shall be seeing,
'agapic love'."
3. Positivism - a positivistic position, as opposed to a nuturalistic view, holds that values
are derieved voluntaristically, not rationally.
- A man decides on his values; he does not deduce them from nature.
- This is also called "emotivism" because moral values are thought to be
expressions of one's feelings rather than prescriptions of for one's life.
4. Personalism - moral values are not only what persons express; persons are the
ultimate moral values.
- There are no inherently good things; only persons are inherently
valuable.
- Value only "happens" to things. Things are of value only to persons.
- "Things are to be used; people are to be loved."
Summary:
 In brief, situationism is an ethic with a pragmatic strategy, a relativistic tactic, a
positivistic attitudeand personalistic value center. It is an ethic with one absolute to
which everything else is relative and which is directed toward the pragmaticend of
doing good to persons.

Explaining the Propositions

a. "Only one thing is intrinsically good; namely, love: nothing else at all."

- God wills something because it is good.

- Love is an attitude, not an attribute. Love is something that person give and something
that person should receive, because only persons have intrinsic value.

- For Fletcher the opposite of love is not hate, which really perverted form of love, but
rather indifference. Hate atleast treats the other as a thou or person. Indifference treats others
as inanimate objects.

- Fletcher is opposed to calling some acts lesser and, therefore, excusable evils. A spy's lie,
for example, is not wrong at all. Whatever is the loving thing to do in a given situation is the right
thing to do,even if it involves sacrificial suicide under torture to avoid betraying one's comrades
to the enemy.

b. "The ruling norm of Christian decision is love; nothing else."

- We follow law, if it all for love sake.

- There are no universal laws except love. Every other law is breakable by love.
 - Christian love is a giving love. Christian love is neither romantic (erotic) love nor
friendship (philic) love. Christian love is a sacrificial (agapic) love.

c. "Love and justice are the same, for justice is love distributed; nothing else."

- Love does more than take justice into account; love become justice. Justice means to
give others their due, and love is their due.

- Love is not merely a present activity toward one's immediate neighbor. Love must have a
foresight. It must borrow the utilitarian principle and try to bring the greatest good (love) to the
greatest number of men, for if love does not remote consequences, it becomes selfish.

d. "Love wills the neighbor's good whether we like him or not."

- All love is self-love, but it is the self loved for the sake of loving the most men possible.
Love is one, but there are three objects: God, neighbor, and self. Self-love may be either right or
wrong. "If we love ourselves for our own sakes, that is wrong. If we love ourselves for God's sake
and the neighbor's, then it is right. For to love God and the neighbor is to love one's self in the
right way. . . ; to love one's self in the right way is to love God and one's neighbor.

- Love does not even necessarily involve pleasing our neighbor. Love demands that we
will our neighbor's good, whether or not he pleases us, and whether or not our love pleases him.
Calculating the neighbor's good, even if it displeases him, is not cruel. A military nurse, for
example, may lovingly treat patients roughly so as to hasten their recovery and return them to
battle.

e. "Only the end justifies the means; nothing else"

- The only thing that can justify an act is if it is done following end or purposes. This is not
to say that any end justify any means, but only that a loving end justify any means.

- The means cannot justify themselves. Only ends justify means.

f. "Love's decisions are made situationally, not prescriptively."

- What the situationist does have in advance is a general (though not specific) knowledge
of what he should do (love), why he should do it (for God's sake), and to whom it should be done
(his neighbors).

Applying the Love Norm

1. Altruistic Aldultery
2. Patriotic Prostitution
3. Sacrificial Suicide
4. Acceptable Abortion
5. Merciful Murder

Some Advantages of the Situational Position

 It is a normative proposition
 It is an absolutism
 It resolves the issue of conflicting norm
 It stresses love and the value of persons

Some Inadequencies of One-Norm Situationism

 One norm is too general

 The situation does not determine the meaning of love
 The possibility of many universal norms
 A different universal norm is possible
 A many-norm ethic is defensible
 Flethcher is really a utilitarian

Summary and Conclusion

Situationism claims to be a one-norm absolutism. It believes that everything should be

judged by one absolute moral law---love. However, it turns out that this one moral principle is
reallt only formal and empty. It has no content that can be known in advance of or apart from
the situation. Different situations really determine what it means. So in the final analysis tha one
moral law turns out to be no moral law. Situationism reduces to antinomianism, for one empty
absolute moral law is in practice no better than no absolute moral law.